Is God an Unnecessary Hypothesis?

[SalixIncendium]

God is not an unnecessary hypothesis.

Let's do math.

0+0 = ?

If there is nothing there, nothing can create nothing.

"But evolution explains..."

Sorry, nothing plus nothing is still nothing. I wonder how you think things can exist much less evolve without one ( btw, to have a being capable of evolving is MORE complex not less than simply plopping down full evolved humans).

See @Sunstone. Told ya there were many.

@Samantha Rinne, since you bring your mastery of math into the mix, please show us the equation that demonstrates the necessity for the God hypothesis.

 

[stvdv]

It is sometimes said that "God is an unnecessary hypothesis"

meaning there are no cases or instances when one must resort to claiming god did it in order to explain anything about the nature of the physical universe.

Thank you for explaining this, I might have gone the wrong way

Are you inclined to agree or to disagree with that notion?

1) God is the Great Unknown (without a definition all agree on).
2) Hence God is about "believe", not about "Fact" or "proof"
3) Claiming is about "Fact"
Hence I agree that "God is an unnecessary hypothesis"

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Why would any hypothesis be unnecessary?

This choice of words sounds like someone with a bias using an equivalent of Occam's Razor to eliminate the explanation not preferred.

Occam's Razor often is used inbthis way, to try to dismiss God. The problem is, it turns into one of Sculley's rationalizations (you remember the X-Files, right?) where the thing being denied is actually the easier explanation to understand. Occam's Razor is intented to reduce complicated ideas, not to create illogical thought.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

See @Sunstone. Told ya there were many.

@Samantha Rinne, since you bring your mastery of math into the mix, please show us the equation that demonstrates the necessity for the God hypothesis.

The equation is intended to make a 1. If you can show me through addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, some sort of calculus or trigonometry how zero becomes a 1, you're welcome to it. I won't believe it's anything besides sleight of hand. But you're welcome to it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The equation is intended to make a 1. If you can show me through addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, some sort of calculus or trigonometry how zero becomes a 1, you're welcome to it. I won't believe it's anything besides sleight of hand. But you're welcome to it.

Show me the equation that makes a sentient intelligent creator/ruler from nothing.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Btw, the equation expected above requires no addition of 1. That is 0+1 is not a valid solution , because currently 1 does not exist.

Easy.

(Draws infinity symbol)

And eternal God does not have a beginning nor end.

God doesn't come from nothing either. God is the idea of SOMETHING.

0+1= NOT VALID (base zero number system only accepts 0 and more zero)
1+0 =1 (base 2 binary system)

 

[SalixIncendium]

Btw, the equation expected above requires no addition of 1. That is 0+1 is not a valid solution , because currently 1 does not exist.

Easy.

(Draws infinity symbol)

And eternal God does not have a beginning nor end.

God doesn't come from nothing either. God is the idea of SOMETHING.

0+1= NOT VALID (base zero number system only accepts 0 and more zero)
1+0 =1 (base 2 binary system)

And how do we extrapolate from this that God is a necessary hypothesis?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's automatic, natural, something that cannot be suppressed. But the arrogant do sometimes think that it is unnecessary.

I must be arrogant.
I've no necessity for gods...no need or reason to believe in them.
They're fanciful things with no apparent relationship with our reality.
Can't detect them...can't test for them...tis a house of cards built
upon feelings & myths IMO.

 

[joe1776]

On the contrary, the right brain simply processes the same basic sensory data, but in a slightly different way.... The right brain is a bit more devoted to non-verbal and social interactions.

There's no replicated science to support you on that. Science has only a crude tool for observing the effects of the right brain as flashes of light(fMRI).

Until very recently, scientists thought that the moral decisions which rule our lives were the product of left brain reasoning function. In the last 20 years or so, research has confirmed that Hume was right centuries ago when he described the judgments of conscience as feelings (intuition).

Researchers haven't yet tried to explain how the unconscious mind can make immediate judgments when the specific moral case is unique among a countless variety.

Bottom Line: To say that the "God hypothesis" is unnecessary to science only reveals one's bias. The truth is that science is limited in scope because our senses are limited in scope. Anything outside that scope is not unnecessary to science. It's simply currently unavailable to science.

 

[joe1776]

And how do we extrapolate from this that God is a necessary hypothesis?

An hypothesis is true or false. The notion of an hypothesis being necessary or unnecessary is absurd. It's the product of flawed reasoning.

 

[McBell]

An hypothesis is true or false. The notion of an hypothesis being necessary or unnecessary is absurd. It's the product of flawed reasoning.

huh?
A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Now since "GodDidIt' is used to end further investigation....

 

[Heyo]

You've missed the point. The question -- Does a higher power exist -- is independent of religion. The fact that most religious people believe in a higher power doesn't change that.

I didn't answer to the Question "Does a higher power exist?" but to:

The theist says God created it all and your scientific theories are unnecessary. Explain why your reasoning trumps his.

Because you believe in science?

My reasoning trumps his because, as Richard Dawkins said "Science, it works". (do not google for the complete quote, its NSFW)

 

[PureX]

I think there are still many in this world who believe that in order for something to happen or for something to come into existence, there must be some intelligent force behind it, ergo, God.

Well, for anything besides abject chaos to happen, some sort of control has to be imposed on it. Since that control, in the case of our universe, has resulted in enormous variety and complexity; far beyond that which we humans can understand, we perceive an incredible intelligence within it. "God" is just a word many use to refer to that mysterious omni-intelligence.

So for me, I agree with the notion that God is an unnecessary hypothesis, ...

And yet that pesky issue of the control within the chaos remains, and remains unanswered.

 

[joe1776]

huh?
A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

In its essential nature, an hypothesis is a factual claim. Facts are either true or false. They can only be properly labeled necessary or unnecessary (trivia) if true.

Now since "GodDidIt' is used to end further investigation....

You're using a claim unsupported by evidence to justify applying the "unnecessary" label to the God hypothesis. Doing that only reveals your bias. It doesn't make a valid argument.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

And how do we extrapolate from this that God is a necessary hypothesis?

I'll show that quote to you again.

Btw, the equation expected above requires no addition of 1. That is 0+1 is not a valid solution , because currently 1 does not exist.

Easy.

(Draws infinity symbol)

And eternal God does not have a beginning nor end.

God doesn't come from nothing either. God is the idea of SOMETHING.

0+1= NOT VALID (base zero number system only accepts 0 and more zero)
1+0 =1 (base 2 binary system)

Number bases.

Base 0 is just zero.
Base 2 is 0 and 1 (used for computers).
Base 10 is numbers 0-9.
Base 16 is number 0-F (0-15).
There are probably other bases, but I only know the ones from programming.

Let's review. If there is no system of anything besides nothing (that is, base 0), nothing can exist.

Ergo, without something that is not nothing (that is always something), nothing can exist.

But don't take my word for it, hear what the NIV Study Bible has to say about Genesis 1:1

1: In the beginning a God created b the heavens and the earth. c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible always assumes, never argues, God's existence. Although everything else had a beginning, God has always been (Psalm 90:2). a. In the beginning - John 1:1-10 which stresses the work of Christ in the creation opens with the same phrase. b. God created - In the OT the Hebrew verb for "create" is used only of divine, never human, activity c. The heavens and the earth - "All things" (Isaiah 44:24)

Read that again, it is not debated whether God exists. It is a given.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Number bases.

Base 0 is just zero.
Base 2 is 0 and 1 (used for computers).
Base 10 is numbers 0-9.
Base 16 is number 0-F (0-15).
There are probably other bases, but I only know the ones from programming.

Let's review. If there is no system of anything besides nothing (that is, base 0), nothing can exist.

Ergo, without something that is not nothing, that is always something, nothing can exist.

But don't take my word for it, hear what the NIV Study Bible has to say about Genesis 1:1



Read that again, it is not debated whether God exists. It is a given.

For you.

Like I said in my first post in this thread...

I think there are still many in this world who believe that in order for something to happen or for something to come into existence, there must be some intelligent force behind it, ergo, God.

Thanks for supporting my hypothesis.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't think it can be even considered a hypothesis. A hypothesis needs a factual foundation first and foremost.

At best, God is just an idea that some people have.

 

[joe1776]

My reasoning trumps his because, as Richard Dawkins said "Science, it works". (do not google for the complete quote, its NSFW)

You and Dawkins are afflicted with Reason Worship, IMO.

There are intuitions and instincts that ,IMO, will trump reason. The best example is conscience, a intuitive sense of right and wrong, which Dawkins doesn't understand (The Selfish Gene hypothesis).

 

[joe1776]

I don't think it can be even considered a hypothesis. A hypothesis needs a factual foundation first and foremost.

At best, God is just an idea that some people have.

The factual foundation is this:

It's hard to think of a culture that hasn't believed in a higher power. I think there's an instinct or intuition that moves these beliefs.

In all those cultures, there are also men who claimed to know more than others about a higher power but I think of them as distractions. The interesting question: Is this instinct based on reality or not?

 

[Heyo]

Number bases.

Base 0 is just zero.

FYI: when you have only one digit it is called base 1.
(Base 2 has two digits, 1 and 0, base 10 has 10 digits 0 .. 9, etc.)
In base 1 0 + 0 = 00.

Just to refresh your fifth class maths knowledge.